are not meant to do it. the fbi is very cautious and we are going to work very slowly. when there is an opportunity for something to happen, we get an e-mail from the kidnapper discussing your income in the kitchen with them and it's going to work very consciously it is not going to want you to have as much hope and optimism and see some type of her eyes and as the families will. they have a cultural understanding. they just didn't understand what they were dealing with in the region. ..

>> someone came out. he had information of a prisoner, came out. he had information. in some cases somebody goes into to something and the person he comes out and he says i've seen westerners. we had some cases of syrian prisoners been released escaping, seen westerners. unfortunately, a lot of this wasn't real-time. most of the time it's like a hollywood movie. they slipped through our fingers. we have been in the location a week or two ago. we didn't have definitive

real-time information until the hostages began being released. when you talk about fbi it's a law enforcement thing for them. when they debrief hostages they're more interested in putting together a case against the hostage taker as opposed to finding the hostage takers trying to get a solution. a problem for people like us is that we saw the government, the government and the agency as an iceberg. we don't with so few people above water, above ground and they interact and interface with the other agencies so we did know what was going on. it was hard to know anything when people are not getting information.

peter spoke about negotiating, and you will talk to the terrorist that you won't give them anything. the fbi, it will bring you the promised land but it will help you craft e-mails. it will help you try to facilitate negotiations to bring them home but it will not deliver the money. it will not bring the money. it will do everything else which it's very puzzling for me it's not difficult to understand. i can understand this because they will say we didn't negotiate with facilities, we didn't do anything. that can't be proven in a court of law. that for the families it's so confusing. the families are trying to learn so much and they don't understand the nuances in the details the people in government have been working with for so many years. it just compounds their frustration and the challenges and dilemmas. it's one thing they don't understand. at the end of the day these

families get overwhelmed. they just do not know the juggernaut they are facing down, that stands before them. they are just so overwhelmed sometimes they even shut down and let everything go over the head or they just get so flustered and confused that they cannot, they cannot point you anymore. one of the problems we had i think debbie touched apart from the left and doesn't know what the right hand is doing. the fbi and the state department, when you put those two in the room, there's nobody that has priority over the other. they are both independent agencies. they can't tell each other what to do, and in many cases they don't know what they're doing unless you connect the dots. unless you tell them what the of the agency did. if you're waiting for an interview from one agency and the other chief doesn't know what's going on is not in lieu they are not what you know and

there's -- it's so frustrating that you see things and you can create your own horizon and the government agency, these guys can and you just wonder what the heck are they doing. congress congress is a very important role. i spoken out about our frustrations with the administration. debbie touched briefly on it. congress is your best friend. your congressman from your home state are always going to help you. they will write letters to the president. they will write letters to the head of the fbi. they will write letters to the head of the cia. they will ask questions they will ask question 81 in open hearings, in closed hearings. those are your best friends in these situations. and again that goes back to learning curve. we did know that at the beginning and to we started -- soundtrack one of the things that's but i have a lot of experience in the arab world the

air people always tell you know you can do something. you need to think outside of the box, how are you going to get a picture, how are you going to get a discussion with somebody or how are you going to get past the checkpoint, get a permit. and the reason for the our government did not did not have any creative solutions. we never know i wasn't able to speak with anybody in the white house. and the people, the families, who did speak they never got much. but the terrorists don't always want money. they want different things. there are different ways to these terrorist without funding their terrorists infrastructure. we know from former cases from did not the benefits is a strategy and approach that was used in the past. one of the problems that we ran encountered, and i don't know if it's true or not but i spoke to

people who were at very high levels in the intelligence community before retiring. they weren't sure the people in the white house had read a presidential directive that were instituted under bush because it didn't seem interested what denial of benefits was -- >> what do you mean by that, denial of benefits? >> so basically what happens is you facilitate the transfer of the money to the terrorist organization but your stated goal is that they will never benefit from that money. you will deny them the benefit of that money. and it's basically follow the money. we see these things a lot in movies and in books where they get the serial numbers on the dollar bills are traceable. that's why people want better

bonds -- bearer bonds that are untraceable. that's one thing that could've been done. when you deal with these situations you have, on our side, one of the most important questions is who are you going to trust. you've got to trust, you have to put together teams look to certain people. you're going to have to create a security team that you follow that guy through the fire whatever the security fatality you've got to get guys on the ground. in our case it was the syrians that you will tell everything about everything because they will do what they can for you. they will get information that you never can get. they will go places that none of you people can get to. and, of course, the fbi are you going to work with fbi agents? are you going to trust them when they don't tell you anything? the fbi is like a vacuum cleaner. it sucks up your information and doesn't give you anything in return. that i can tell you from

personal experience it frustrates a number of the families. a number of the families did not have good relationship with fbi. others did. some of the family spoke very highly of them. you've got to choose the right agent when you're working in the fbi. fbi teams coming to man teams. you can bring in a guy that does not sit down at the table and can't talk to the family for two hours about the most monday and topics. i had a guy, fbi agents, he loved football. we spent 10 50 minutes talking about the ravens. he loved the ravens. and the lines, i'm a detroit lions fan. you need to develop some kind of relationship so you need affable fbi agents. he can have some of these bookish guys. if you want to make a federal case a priority for the white house you need to step up pressure.

and how do you do that? you go public. the question here is you have a dilemma. you get increased exposure versus false lead. we were discouraged from going public. in retrospect i think that was a mistake. we had several families, and some families were not comfortable with that. but these are some of the things that when you think about how you want to leverage your assets, from the government, and what are the drawbacks. and also this is a very unique case. i'm not sure we'll see it again but we saw for americans being held by the same organization in the same location. so it inclines itself to creating a team atmosphere where everybody works together. [inaudible] >> steven sotloff weibrecht and, peter casey who was an aid worker, jim foley who was a

journalist and caleb who was an aid worker. are kidnapped in different times but they eventually were all brought together and we had a unique thing is we had information about them. they knew things. we are able to get here and there and then put them together and then finally and hostages, the european hostages for ransom by the government putting together, we don't need somebody in three cells down who hears the name or here's people speaking french the guard speaking to oppressors in french. so the question is when you talk about you have a team are you going to work as a team to leverage assets, or are you going to work individually? if you work as a team how are you going to make this corrective? is it going to be unanimous on majority rule?

these things we didn't think about a lot in the beginning and i don't think many people have ever encountered. and, finally the question of ransom. for instance, could have been paid by the american families themselves early on wednesday price of the hostage was reasonable. but at the end when all the europeans have been released the price is so astronomical that only the wealthiest types of family in america could afford to pay that money on their own. and it was just too exotic to believe that could've been accomplished. >> thank you. you raise an incredibly important questions so let me start with so gary you paint a picture of the fbi negotiating you know, as a matter of course having a very high success rate with the groups that were not -- sort of an al-qaeda affiliate pretty major terrorist group who

have been around for five decades. so it's not a course they are not isis but they are still very serious people doing very bad things. and then barak, the fbi seems to be stiff arming the families say nothing, nothing that helpful. so what happened, what's shifted and when did it shift? >> i think from 1990 to 2031 around the fbi's program we seem to have greater flexibility and operated with a few number of other government entities. essentially the fbi would deploy a trained, skilled negotiator to be the families liaison. i think there's been a shift where they sent investigators that we may not have some of the communication skills that a negotiator would typically have. and not only that, there summon agencies now that since 9/11

there's been a slow steady movement towards more and more agencies getting their funding from terrorism, wanted to be involved in all major chairs and cases. and truly sometimes we do i think in the with many cooks in the kitchen and not sure what we've tried to make. i like their perspective a central core data point. there is a group that meets in the nfc, interagency group to coordinate these matters but the really does at least when i was there seem to be a lack of clear leadership asked who was in charge. and it was supposed to do it. i think that's a problem because of all the resources the government has. we did show a high success rate in the past. if i were to recommend begin, i would try to move back towards that successful model. there are too many people contacting the families even been contradictory information. we used to share with them things that went well beyond security restrictions and now i

think they're so many other entities involved that each agency particularly fbi may be scared to do that. >> this interagency coordinator sells a really good idea. he or she would be responsible for the two dozen americans that are being held, i don't know what the exact number is and i mean for this to work bureaucratically, how would it work bureaucratically? it would have to be summoned again boss people around and all lots of different places, right? >> it would have to be someone with presidential authority. and that's lacking. i want to say one of the point that goes to debra's point. i could hear that the families perceive the fbi as more interest in criminal prosecution. i will tell you that is not the case unless there's been a dramatic change that i am unaware. our top clearly was always a safe and timely release of the victims. prosecution was a distant and i

do many distant second objective. it was the legal basis for which the fbi becomes involved, but it was often an unrealistic goal and we knew. the real important goal, the prize was to get the hostage out alive. >> another idea that debra had was this question of giving families security clearance. let's delve into that a bit. you go through a background check, you and your husband presumably, right? you would only be given information that relates to sense case. it's not like they're going that you top secret information about the iranian nuclear program, right? your clearance would be invoked if he said something in public that was classified or you pay some sort of penalty. this also seems like a no-brainer. it gets to your your observation which is we have a lot of three letter agencies in the world and everyone is fighting the team too far ahead of them. if the family has clearance bin this is a non-issue.

i were to guess after i retired and at one point in time the government of the us government that the videotape of a prison to which they had been held. recently moved from. they did not share that with the family. it was hardly top secret information but then when the prosecuted one of the terrorists involved while the captivity was still ongoing, they showed it in opencourt. and the families were understandably furious. why were we able to see this very detailed video showing what our relatives have been held soviet an idea of what conditions they lived in? these kinds of mistakes that happen because there are again in my judgment too many people making these decisions. >> barak raise this issue about the issue going public, and kerry, i know you endeavor in your case the check and has inserted announced he would be taken. sort of a non-issue for you but i know, gary, this is a big issue for the defense contractors. for many years the families had

nothing to tell us what happened. >> this case where three defense contractors, there were four their plane was on contract from his government to do drug surveillance. the plane crashed due to an engine good and they were captured by the farc. one american and the colombian officer were exited right away. the others were held until being rescued. this case did receive sufficient not right. the family couldn't keep it quiet. let me make a point on this. it seems to be a fact that is accepted by everyone in the government that no publicity is always best. that is often the case but it is not always the case. there were a number of cases the schilling case in the philippines where we very effectively used the media probably to save a young man's life by the messages that we crafted. there is a time and place for everything. to have blanket, blind doctrine

that takes away flexibility i think it's unwise. been a so what are the upside and downside of going public? >> the time to appeal. in the case i refer to they threaten to execute this young man, cut his head off. as some of you may know they have a track record of doing just that. they were going to do this as a birthday present for the president of the philippines in a very sick way. we at that time and for the first time that this young man's mother make some very direct appeals, very well-crafted messages, personal to the philippines under our guidance and support and painted a very positive picture of her son to the extent that they did not carry out the execution. because he came to to marry a filipino. he was a good person. he converted to the muslim religion before he went to the philippines. so we feel as though they backed away from that for fear of losing some support among

whatever their followers were. so that's one example of many where we tried to now is a good time for us to come forward and make a statement. to say it's always bad, never do it, i think shows that somebody really does not negotiation works. >> barak, let me ask you a question. so you represented steven sotloff the you speak arabic. you lived in turkey. you in touch with isis is that right? >> yes. >> what were you doing for the family? you also worked on somebody's of the cases or or help on some of these other cases. what were you doing? i guess another question, i guess you implied because i think most people would say that isis always wanted to kill these americans that you were saying there was a moment when they were asking for money when negotiations might've been possible. >> no. on that i'm saying there were is

no negotiation between isis and america been. diane spoke earlier -- they appeared and disappeared. but for what i was doing, early on we had to get information. it was such a unique situation that we are able to get information from prisons where people were ice prisons in this locale. wait until the fixer was released after i think about 17 days. so he could tell us who took them, where they were taken, what direction, what was going on in that prison, tried to put things together based on what other fighters from other brigades were in the prison to locate the prison. and then what you do is once you have that information you just wait. you get you are serious and

will put you in touch with other syrians who spent time in prison, and they will start mapping out processes for you to you get all kinds of information from all kinds of different prisons. that's the situation. >> information is used for a hostage rescue? >> the first thing is you want to know if your guy is alive. you had fully -- foley thanksgiving 2012 i believe and there's not a sighting of him until i think august 2013 i believe. so his family did not what had happened to them and they thought he had been killed because he was the man he was taken with testified in opencourt against jihadists in britain who kidnapped him

earlier in syria before he was kidnapped again. so you want, basically you want to know that your guy is still alive, that he's doing okay. and very important, gary can talk about this, you don't want your guide to be alone because you crawl the walls. anybody has been put in a cell all along and shut the door in the dark knows that's the worst feeling in the world. you want to know your guy is with other people and he is something to do all day. those are very important things. >> the american journalist was released by al-qaeda the qatari government which has quite a lot of play over al-qaeda if you in syria intervened. we don't know the circumstances but i doubt al-qaeda just had a good day in said we're going to let this guy go. i think this is a very interesting precedent for some the things we're talking about which is included, the u.s. government target oldest

negotiation at the qatari government did. clearly with some help of the american government. i don't think it was, i mean it is possible this guy was being held by al-qaeda which is not a nice group of people. something allowed them to release this american journalist. so barak, you have a sense of what that something is? what are the lessons that is relative recent case may hold for anybody on the panel? >> the circumstances surrounding his release is they will come up very soon. will learn a lot more. but what happened is i believe, i don't know everything that the countries have those channels. they can go in and they're into those organizations and they're willing to help us. and what happened here is what

ever negotiation happened some expedited once the beheading occurs and our new service that would to be put in the same basket as isis. things are facilitated very, very closely. >> i think the use of intermediaries is for critical takeover talk about the jihadi groups to the u.s. government simply cannot sit down at a coffee table with these folks out in the desert somewhere. we have the of intermediaries. this is one of the areas i think particularly where the families, there's a lot of charlatans who have come forward. it's different than the government but there's a lot of charlatans.com for and say we can do this, we can do that. we need seed money, whatever might be. that's one of the roles were thank you has to play particularly important part to bet that for the families. and to let them know what's going on. mine negotiators you to sit with people and say here's what we are doing, here's why we're doing it. we are candid and i think things have just changed a bit on this.

on the intermediary front when i retired in january of 2003 a way to work and the private sector and begin to work this kidnapping of the three american defense contractors. during the five and half years, i have to tell you honestly, the u.s. government did nothing other than prepare for a military rescue. they wanted to find a way these guys were and go after them. the only intermediary the only negotiation efforts which were expensive, were done by the company i worked for on behalf of the families. that was it. that was very disappointing for me because it was a departure from what we have done for the previous 13 years. and i think part and parcel to that was this perception that if we reach out if we contact the church or the red cross or use a journalist, whatever it might be, that that was again to negotiating. one more quick thing peter. the thing that surprises me so much what i hear on the news is from every politician that our

policy of no ransom, no negotiation as it is stated protect americans. and i will tell you unequivocally there is zero evidence that support americans are kidnapped in a less because of this policy. there is zero evidence that this policy helps effectuate their self -- their safe release. no one has ever shown me, i don't know group that says we've got an american let's let them go because we're not going to get any money. it simply does not happen. so alive is to restrict our flexibility, it's a terribly close minded approach given this very complex problem. >> i guess the counter argument to that is the french investigation will show that french citizens were being taken at a higher rate. this is very small sample. the counter counter argument would be well, these are all

countries where these people have been taken and used by the law of averages. i agree with you. there's no evidence. >> what with evidence look like if it existed? spend well, i mean we would see either americans were released as soon as they were grabbed because some of the we're not going to get any money, or they are some and not taken to begin with and neither one of those holds two whatsoever. to me the policy either should work to prevent americans from being grabbed our help secure the safe and timely release. i don't see you doing either one of those things, although it seems like common sense to us. certainly the terrorists will see there's nothing to be gained by grabbing an american so therefore, they won't do it. show me the case where that's happened because i am unaware of it. >> in the 1976 palestinian esop hijacked an air france

plane that was carrying israelis on it and then they bring it to you can't and they divide them. i think earlier divided them in libya. a jewish sounding names everybody else and they let everybody else go. you don't have that happen in kidnappings. you don't have somali pirates know that they're going to get on a boat and who are they going to find on that boat. that said, when you look at french being taken, we can very similar to the number of americans who have passports, french passport. i looked at that and depth come it's been a few years but french, french, they had a policy across the board, and the first vacation if it's with -- on the second occasion 2010, they went in with force. their policy has not been uniform on this.

and both cases those countries you don't have americans traveling in those countries. yemen, you will see about the french in yemen. you don't see that many americans in yemen. so those are the issues as well. but that's not going to change until you have a uniform policy that everyone subscribes to this is no ransom. ..

sometimes an intermediary, sometimes to go public. there is a whole gamut you have to run through. what is the best way to get the job done. i mentioned earlier the fbi virtually eliminated kidnapping many years ago because the bad guys got arrested and served very lengthy jail sentences. look at somalia as a bid instructed. but all the ships hijacked in the company said we will pay the money, cost of doing business. all of a sudden it became such a problem they made these were out there intercepting pirates. we have very little today. why? rather than sane people couldn't pay ransom, we went after the bad guys. even after a ransom was paid. let's get our people out alive. then we vigorously pursue the bad guys and make them pay a price. simply telling the families you

know, they tried this in colombia. they tried it in malaysia, banning the payment of ransom. what happens as it was about telling the authorities feared it does not work. >> like i said these kids are amazing and in the absence of a mother in father who are completely awol for them they fully been a together to look after each other. the youngest is 21. but it's not easy. they really miss having their mom and dad fully on board and engaged in their lives. >> we have a c-span live audience. can you wait for the microphone before you start talking and also identify yourself.

but if you're him in the microphone will come to you. >> some of you mentioned the media's involvement and whether or not to go public. is there any communication with the state department before they put out a statement regarding your family member or clients case? and if not should that be part of the protocol, the joint median plan? >> yeah, so when you talk about adl, you have to look at the local media and anything they will be irresponsible under the national media that they are it's going to go 99% of the time. if you are going to roll out something, focus group testing or whatnot they will do what they want. we went to the media a couple of

times. we had ideas about planting something, how we would go about it. your only problem is your local media is not going to understand the magnitude around the reporting the guys there holocaust survivors. they are not going to understand that and they are not going to understand the elements. a lot of this is common amongst youngsters. >> the national media is good about not reporting things. >> exactly. >> it is something the national media didn't report on. >> they all knew about it. many of them spent a lot of time in israel. they are not even trying to exclude. if a guy gets kidnapped, the

first person can write a story. they don't care -- i don't even know if i should say their names, but very big journalists who are always there for you, bounce ideas, hold your hands. >> you think that is because -- i mean the media has criticism for all the things it does. i think it does a good job with the self-censorship on issues in danger. is that across the board for american prosecution? >> i know it came out with a miscommunication between some people in the entourage and the media have released it with some type of ultimatum made by isis with her. we reached out -- they reached out in the media didn't go with

that. abc i don't believe is at fault either. i think it was miscommunication there. but nobody else is talking about that. >> to some extent, there does seem to emerge of a bit of a double standard. when it is a journalist grant, it has been told to me by my friends in the fbi that they are quite ready and willing cooperative to keep a lid on things. when it is not a journalist there seems to be a different approach taken in my sensitivity to the problems and issues involved. that they not be correct, but anecdotally that is why i am here. >> and reading gary spoke, talking about when they had the sniper in the d.c. area and they were talking about he wasn't a very good shot in the chest and the head. it was as if he was taking his cues from the media. if i understand correctly, the

coordination with the family and stay in crafting a media message. we experienced early on. there is a video and folks in our government can hardly wait to show how smart they were and not being tricked by the content of this video. but if you are really, really smart, people figure it out and you don't have to put a billboard up about it. we spent almost two years walking now. >> tell us the story in some detail. >> video shows often taken out on a countryside and sort of addressed more in afghanistan than area. our government was very eager to say this isn't happening in syria.

someone is trying to throw a red herring. well that may not have been the first thing that needed to be said. >> one thing you did they make these statements? if you're going to try to approach someone to help you you maybe don't want to come out of the gate calling them a liar. that may make your communication far more difficult. so, recently we had an incident where there was discussion about often having been seen. once again the first thing people wanted to show i am too smart. i am going to show how smart i am. thanks be to god, two and a half years we did worked together and we responded to gather to that news rather than having anybody pursue their own agenda and go off on their own.

it was the first time that we really felt that we were part of the team and that we came up with a response to get there. >> what i would say if i had been advising the family that i think it is a good or bad idea to make a statement. however it is always the family's right to make a statement. if they decide to do so, we craft that with the positive and have an impact because it is a secondary way to bridge you can conduct a negotiation. on the government peace summit the government will want to know what the families are going to say. i don't know too many examples and i think that is the missing piece that we have seen in the past because the multiple agencies involved. it is important when i advised clients come in the first thing i say is whatever you say he shared with the family before it

goes public. give them that first look at it and the ability to comment on it in court mate with them. it is an important point. >> what here is a great example of how the bureaucracy has become title iso misinterpretation of policy and institution or protocol. we were asking you know you have your first amendment right. we can't advise you on what to say. that doesn't have anything to do with our first amendment rights. but they would not advise us. they would say that doesn't sound too bad. well, does it sound fantastic? my son's life is on the line. we have first amendment rights. >> i wouldn't dream of violating their first amendment rights.

>> this gentleman here and then this lady here. >> thanks for sharing your experiences. i am sean linker. i work at george washington university, students going abroad. you talk a lot about the relationship between family and the government and i was just wondering if you could attach a bit more on the intermediaries like the companies they may be working for how they work on their relationship. >> it could become a problem because the government sees the family as being the entity that efficiently is to be updated or briefed or coordinated way. so when there is a company involved as well it can become complicated because the companies want to represent the families. sometimes they can get cut out of the process so it is very complicated.

for me, you have to identify the stakeholders and then the briefings have to be very focused on keeping everyone on the same sheet of music. you have to keep everyone in the tent. one of the problems the government this is a legitimate one. families are not just moms and dads. families are uncles aunts brothers and sisters. there is almost always a family member that decides this is their five minutes of fame and they will say and do a lot of things that are truly counterproductive to the case. that is one of the reasons the government is weary. i do believe that there is ways to manage that properly as they talk about betting the families and giving unlimited clearances. that is a wonderful idea and i would support that. >> so when you look at certain party intermarried, there's two parts. there are regular civilians that are close to the family. we don't make a lot of headway with the government because like you said they think we are

trying to get our 15 minutes of fame and we are going to upset the wagon. and then you have other third-party intermediaries members of the intelligence community who work closely with a lot of people in their positions that have a lot of experience how the government works, how bureaucracy works and they are able to open up certain doors that people like me can't enable speak to senior people on a weekly basis. because of other people involved in the case and things that i heard on the phone when i was on the phone with them a senior people, how they address them what they said and former conversations. when you say to people in the government you just want to listen because they don't want to say anything.

at some point in time they say something when they are not trying to say something and you can put things together. the third-party intermediaries i think that they do have more traction. >> interestingly enough, diane foley contacted me. like you she read my book and asked the fbi if she could speak to me and we spoke. it saddens me because someone reportedly from the national security council that threatens the foley family with prosecution. had i been advising her at the time which i have not and have not even known her, i would've told them to go fly a kite because no one has ever been prosecuted. no family member -- no one ever has been prosecuted or rent some violation. it is a family member they never will be. i cannot imagine if prosecutors save ladies and gentlemen of the jury let's throw the book at

the foley is because they spent $2 million to save their son. it is simply not going to happen. to make those threats is disingenuous. it is insulting and whoever said that in the government should be out looking for a new job. >> the families themselves don't get the money to pay it. what if the other third-party and then donors give the money. you cannot extend the umbrella to those other entities and that is a big problem. >> which umbrella? the information one quite >> no. you are saying can fly a kite. but what happens to me in what happens to the donors we are not going to get that. i seen something like that, they are putting it out there to warn us and not so much the family. >> i think they would come after a company. it is only a matter of time before u.s. corporations face a ransom to a group on the state's list. i am confident that goes to

court battle will be thrown out. that was a kidnap ransom. dos extortion, bribery kind of situation. so there is no precedent for this. i just can't see it holding up. it is sort of an idle threat that should not be part of the discussion. >> well since we're on the subject let's try and do some math about what proportion of isis's payroll is coming from kidnapping as a percentage. let's say they get a billion dollars a day in oil revenue or whatever the figure is. >> series video. the number of "the new york times" has 23 million euros that they received for the hostages, for the european hostages. give or take let's say the number is right. early on, the money is important. so we know that isis has this

big strategy with the hostages how they solved these things and nothing happened the way they thought. they were very frustrated. but what happens is early on but money is very important because it doesn't have a lot of money. it is broken away from al qaeda. it also has to do with internal dynamics, what you bring because some of these people were kidnapping before there was isis. if i have a hostage in my group and i have joined isis i am going to get higher, more commanders. all of access to better weapons and not so much a money thing. there's a lot of applications that go into it. down the road when the american hostages are killed, the amount of money they get they don't really need any more. what they are getting out of mosul and their protection

racket, the discrepancy and differences between the oil revenues out of syria, which is being refined individually by private individuals vis-à-vis what you are doing in mosul in northern iraq is just completely different. just to reiterate from the beginning, the money is somewhat important. by the end it is just nickels and dimes. >> is a matter of degree. nobody wants to see $40 million or $100 million. but again, there is a lower expectation on the terrorists at the families will, families will come up with a big about of money. it is better to let the family to the negotiation and not the government. a good example in 1990 i flew to africa for a kidnapping in zaire and the terrorist group, i'll think of it.

they were holding this american. they wanted money to buy weapons and of course i was very much against u.s. policy. we crafted a deal with the oil company to get them medical supplies, tents, blankets and vehicles. everybody was happy with that. the local government committee with government and we save somebody's life because we were creative. i doubt anybody would go forth during the free defense contractors at one point in time they wanted to send backpacks were rich man. prescription eyeglasses, medicine socks underwear and the justice department threatened them for providing support to terrorists. was a 25000 plus army that did not meet every backpacks. it was ludicrous we got them to back off on that we try to make delivery. >> but there is a concession. there's a way for the u.s. government to do it if you allow

sufficient space and time. it is mosul and the same day they are released, the quick oil is very obvious. but there is a way if we have a more effective policy to do the things we just discussed and also make quid pro quos less obvious. >> but there also has to be a desire a desire to be creative a desire to be flexible. the same guy who threatened the family three times in prosecution when i asked -- [inaudible] >> yes i do. what are we going to do to get clearance? what can we do? is try telling that to the interns coming into this state better are to have their clearance. he told us it would cost us over $100,000 take more than 15 months to get clearance. same exact person.

i mean that disinformation is just astounding. the mac let's try another idea because i think a not uncommon to in the united states is these guys and girls in syria, you know therefore they are the situation. i respond is if we are going -- by definition, journalists are going to be in dangerous places. we are not reported in great numbers in switzerland because nothing happens there. iraq, syria afghanistan pakistan. by definition places where people are. so one response is they are in a dangerous place, which i think some americans believe. >> i get e-mails. >> saying what?

[inaudible] >> here's the deal at that appeared when you get a revolution in libya and we are not getting any information, the first people who go when they are, beyond the border he goes in there and as a story needs able to find out who these rebels are appeared we are putting together who they are with the national transition council and every person on there because the cia did not have the information. they do not know these things. go read george stephanopoulos memoir. when we had that problem in somalia, how did they find out about it? they turn on cnn. the cia does not the nation. that is the way these things are. i've got to say something. i was on one of the programs and made some statements to one of the families. and then you had one of the navy seals who was involved in the bin laden raid on and say he doesn't want to going to save

these people who are reckless. the people like you who are soldiers, they are there to carry out their duties that the president of the united states asked them to do. they don't write research papers and that is the dilemma here. people go when -- when often went in, i was on the border. he went in in such a fermenting time, such an important time when the border had opened and he lived in aleppo and weapons were coming in and there was a chance that the regime could have been toppled at that time. he was providing very crucial information. the cia did not have access to syria at the time. we had no way of getting a permission. he was doing a great service to the country. we have to do everything we can to help get him out. >> if an american businessman goes out gets drunk and gets

kidnapped, the fbi still tries to get him out. so we don't judge our actions based on someone's behavior. the burdock case, you see much criticism. it was a wonderful trait here we look at those five guys later. it doesn't matter. they are not big a fish. my son is a navy seal in afghanistan. because of mental issues he made some poor judgment, i would still expect my country to do whatever occurred to get him out. once he is out we can address the issues later on. our obligation particularly when someone is serving to do what we can come anything we can to get them out. that includes herbalists, drunk businessmen, certainly journalists and everybody else. that is a terrible argument. >> gary, my name is lindsay hamilton. i was wondering, since he worked on the government database and the private side of this is there a difference in your success rate in those different

roles and if you were in the situation, would you go to the fbi or the private sector first? >> that is a tough question. my answer is i would go to both. there are things that government can do that no one else can do clearly. we have sort of -- and the government a bit here, but there's incredible people totally dedicated to this effort in doing the best they can and they need to be given credit for that. but there's also things the private sector can do. i mentioned to three defense contractors. at that time, the ambassador and government entity in columbia because we were supporting the military and they wanted nothing to do with anything other than military rescue. the private corporation i work for the kidnap negotiations we undertake we are the ones deciding the intermediary. the government didn't feel comfortable that we are able to do that. humanitarian argument nations get information to do things

that could've made a huge difference. it did make a big difference, but not the final difference. you have to reach out to as many as you can. you have to make your judgment based on that. >> lady in the back. >> jennifer vasquez at nbc. this is for deborah. two separate questions. if you could just share with us what is a direct message for the white house? what changes would you like to see them as the mother, jay share with the audience the emotional toll the entire process of having your family. >> what was the first question? [inaudible] >> first of all we are glad to know that we are part of it. that is hugely important to us.

of course we would like to see the final product and know that there would be someone whose singular object was to get your loved one home as soon as possible and as safely as possible. the white house is directing that review and that effort entirely because it will be a presidential directive when it is finished. does that answer your question? and your question about her family, you know there are nine device grandbaby plus now two new brother-in-law's since he has been missing. you know, we can be all over the page when the rubber really meets to meet the road we are altogether and not blesses me down to my socks that the kids really are able to look out for each other, to love each other. when one is struggling to circle

the wagon and pull them together. i kind of hit the wall in october of this year and now is the first for them to see mom really struggling. it was amazing what they did to make sure that i had self-care which i tend to neglect. moms kind of do anyway. but this was pretty critical. i have our family traditions. the kids does not come to you our guest year for thanksgiving. you will do nothing but comment on the rest of your presence. that is pretty darn amazing. i think we are holding together really well is to be its expect it. i really do. [inaudible] -- if so how are they doing? >> i speak to them once or twice a week. i was very close and i was friends with them.

steve is best friends with us whenever we're together i would talk to his dad. so i am close with them and i will always close with them. these are difficult times, but they are handling it with class that i don't think i would be able to do. >> any other questions? i want to thank our panel. really very well done. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> if you missed any of the discussion come you can watch it again. we will have it on their website sub one.or on hostage policy in the u.s.

>> i nearly died several times from birth. i almost died at that time and i had the opposite blood type of my mother and the rh factor was different. she had a couple of miscarriages prior to me. i nearly died at birth. so she has always told me that i was her little fighter.

you know that does something to a child that you are not going to quit. you're going to persevere and stay with something until you get it done. and then survived a bout of appendicitis. my appendix actually ruptured and he was about six or seven hours before i had any medical attention to deal with that. didn't know what it was. felt better after ruptured and then peritonitis that in. was in intensive care for two weeks. my folks at that time they thought they were going to lose me. >> you didn't know that ruptured quick >> now. i had a stomach ache, things hurt. suddenly the pressure was relieved. i went outside and played on a saturday and by that night i was doubled over are blinded with pain. i remember asking my mother during that time, i asked her am i going to die? she was honest with me. she says we don't know.

we are praying and we believe you are going to make it. >> former astronauts spoke recently about the future of human spaceflight in congressional funding before a house commerce subcommittee. they spoke on space policy scholars and also commercial space industry officials. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> to hear it will come to order. good afternoon. i would like to thank the distinguished witnesses for being here. just over a half-century ago president john f. kennedy laid down a marker in my hometown of houston, texas and made a commitment that like the great pioneers that came before a come a week to wet set sail on a new seat and then demand to the man. we embarked upon that endeavor as a nation because opening the vistas of space promised high

cost and hardship and enormous reward. today we find ourselves at a similar crossroad. the year 2015 is just as critical of a time for national and commercial space programs as was the case a half-century ago. future exploration is certain to present hardships. but it also promises high rewards. new resources, frontiers and economic opportunities. i am honored to serve as chairman of the subcommittee and as the chairman my first priority for the space component of the subcommittee will be working to help refocus nasa's energies on its core priorities of exploring space. we need to get back to the hard times, to manned space exploration and to the innovation that has been

integral to the mission of nasa. we made to ensure that the united states remains the leader in space exploration in the 21st century. sls and o'brien will be critical to our media and long-term ability to explore space. whether it is the moon mars or beyond. at the same time i remain deeply concerned about our current inability to reach low earth orbit. we are right now entirely dependent on the russian system, which is unacceptable from the perspective of space interest and often from the perspective of national security. every seat that an american astronaut occupies on the russian soyuz cost $70 million.

it is imperative that america has the capability to go to the international space station without the assistance of the russians. america should have the capability to launch a rescue mission to the space station should that prove necessary. without being dependent on the russians. america should have the capacity to launch our critical satellites without needing to require russian rd and 81 russians. the commercial crude program is critical to restoring this capability. i'm encouraged by the progress both with regard to commercial cargo and commercial crew but we need a continued focus on accomplishing the stated objectives with maximum efficiency and expedition.

it is terrific to see commercial companies innovating ms chairman of the senate committee i will be an enthusiastic advocate of competition and the enabling of the private sector to compete and innovate. in 2013, 81 orbital launches were conducted worldwide. 23 of which were commercial launches. revenues from the 23 commercial orbital launches were estimated to be more than 1.9 billion. the united states accounted for six of these launches. there is more that can be done to create long-term predictability for the united states commercial industry so the launch activity will continue to grow. there is no limit to human imagination or for the desire for exploration. everyone of us every little

boy, every girl, every man and woman has what that that the night sky and wondered what lays out there. that is the mystery. that is the vision behind america's base exploration. america has always led the way in space exploration and we need to reclaim that leadership. with that recognize my friend ranking member of the full committee, senator nelson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, blossoms are breaking out all over washington because what you just said you and i completely agree on. as a matter of fact i offered in the armed service committee the amendment to start and it passed. it is part of the defense

authorization bill to start the process. as a matter of fact, we authorized $100 million. senator mccain was a kos wants her of to develop an alternative to the rd 180. indeed we shouldn't be relying on the russians to ride. we have in the past in the 2.5 years that we were down after the loss of the space shuttle columbia earlier in the last decade that was our only way to get up to this date they should and they were a reliable partner

then. but now we can't predict but flat near pruden is going to do now. this was part of the speeches that i was making a decade ago as we were trying to get this thing off the ground. i certainly agree with you and i am just heartened that you came out with such a strong statement on the commercial crew because this is going to be a way that we can get americans on american rocket quicker back into space since the space launch system and its spacecraft orion on down further in the decade even though we have our detested orion on its first test flight. so i am just delighted and as

you know, uni have talked about this until we are both blue in the face. this subcommittee has always not been bipartisan. it has been nonpartisan. the subject of the national space program is a nonpartisan issue. and so i am looking forward to cooperating with you as we tried last year. it didn't happen on getting the authorization that. we need to get the authorization act out of here. just for the remaining six months of this fiscal year and then let's start looking to the additional fiscal years behind. with that, i will stop my comments if i may insert my comments that i prepared in the record for opening comments. i will just end by saying thank

you. >> thank you senator nelson at the very kind comments. i hope those are not used against you in your next campaign. >> i was going to say the same thing to you. yours is a little more immediate than mine. [laughter] >> and i want to thank each of the three distinguished witnesses here. this is a wonderful way to begin the new congress and the jurisdiction of this subcommittee by focusing on the overarching goals that nasa should be focusing on our object is. i cannot think of a more distinguished, a more experienced, a more respected panel of three witnesses here with us today. we have first colonel walt cunningham, former nasa astronaut and apollo seven pilot. we have next dr. buzz aldrin, former nasa astronaut and apollo

11 pilot. and we have mr. michael massimino former astronaut and mission specialist for the space shuttle program. i thank you are taking time from your busy schedules to join us. we will begin with colonel cunningham's testimony. >> thank you sir. i appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on what i believe our space program has been slipping in some of the things nasa must do to maintain america's lead in space exploration. while this is my personal opinion, it is shared by many contemporaries. some additional points are at my written testimony that i hope you will all breed. humans have always been driven to explore the unknown and open new frontiers. opening a new frontier demands three games. resources, technology and most important the will to do it.

in 1960 when america was willing to take the risk of going to the minute when president kennedy made a commitment not a single american had yet been in orbit. the success was due to the collective effort of 400000 members of our team. engineers, operators, managers and contractors. with the whole world watching we took the risk and change the way we perceive their world. we accomplish landing on the moon and he cares. today 45 years later, the next frontier mars is found out of reach because we do not have a national commitment. our apollo program made america preeminent in space in the world's most technologically advanced nation led us to the space shuttle, the greatest machine ever built by man. international space station iss and the hubble space told go.

the spinoffs have ample traded virtually all areas of our industry. fund nasa's portion of the federal budget peak of 4% in 1955 it has been below 1% for the past 40 years. while nasa has accomplished many things and made spaceflight much more routine, we have not challenged the next frontier the manned exploration of mars. that will only be possible if our government initiates and provides funding for such a program. over the years nasa has been subjected to more and more political pressure and the agency has grown political insight. this has less employees much less willing to express opinions freely and the agency less attractive to the best and brightest that today's young professionals. the example. after trying for years nasa is still unable to reduce the numbers they centers they operate around the country in order to lower their overhead costs.

congress and local politicians have always went out in dade the one in their district. a commitment to push back the frontier with a man on mars would drag nasa's budget while the schedule would be controlled by the rate at which congress wednesday. this could empower the agency to create efficiencies evolved over time. a mars expiration vehicle will have to be assembled in earth orbit moving out of earth orbit would require heavy lift rockets lakers space launch system in the orion crew capsule. a reusable launch vehicle similar to our space shuttle may be necessary to assemble an interplanetary spacecraft. while these are all costly, they will be essential in order to move humans out of earth orbit. any mars exploration program on international partners. in the partnership nasa should take his strong leadership role as they did in the apollo program and not just be one more

partner in an international effort. hopefully it would encompass less politics and be better structured than the iss partnership. iss that we gave birth to a 1970s is the most impressive pieces ace hardware ever placed in earth orbit. we transferred three to $5 billion to help resurrect the space industry, increased cost of the program by 15 to $20 billion we are now totally dependent on russia to get americans are meant to and from the iss. success of our space program has always been dependent on private industry and they delivered. massacre less entrepreneurial less efficient and more bureaucratic gas-fired new so-called commercial space companies. while most of these have been subsidized by government funding nasa has less control over development operations and consequently the result as they did in the past.

some people suggest private space companies should collaborate with nasa for space missions beyond earth orbit which means sharing the cause. while commercial companies below its contract with nasa for the hardware and technology, the government will always be expected to pay the cost of exploration funded by tax dollars. space exploration is far too expensive for commercial companies driven by profit and return on investment. space exploration does not satisfy either of these criteria. government agencies are not profit driven. kerman underrating permits agencies to guide, develop and manage technology. our country is return on investment for private industry commercialization of the technology developed. since commercial companies move faster than government agencies production by private industry will sort in the timeline for launch to mars. in the absence of an exploration

program and limited funding, nasa has initiated the asteroid redirect mission possibly to the ground points. today they justified as a first step in a mission to mars. anything that might help a mars mission could be done with other projects. while we work on overcoming the problem of radiation exposure in trying to speed travel, we should return to the moon to develop a crew facility for semipermanent living. many scientists today send robots to mars because humans are too costly and is too dangerous. nasa should send manned and in missions, but humans will be much faster and more efficient because we can think and act in real time. there are two things i believe we should focus on also. eliminating permanently any dependence on other countries for launch capabilities. too ,-com,-com ma find the money for nasa administrators to be less subject to changes in the administration every four years.

the apollo program took eight years to cost $110 billion in today's dollars. the benefits to our society have been priceless. a manned landing on mars will take twice as long and cost of 23 times as much in today's dollars. that is a fraction of what our annual federal budget deficits have been running a deficit do not have a return on investment. the human desire to explore and settle new frontiers will be satisfied if not by americans then by others. humans somewhere will certainly return to the moon and go on to mars. i believe we have the resources and technology but do we have the will to tackle the next frontier mars. thank you. >> thank you, colonel cunningham. dr. aldrin. >> senator cruz, senator

nelson -- [inaudible] senator cruz, senator nelson, senator marquee senator udall too many and space science and competitiveness. i wish to thank and speak with you about human space enterprise. this is an honor and i applaud you for raising this issue so early in the session. america must be the world leader in human spaceflight. there is no other policy area which so clearly demonstrates american innovation and enterprise than human spaceflight. american leadership is more than simply getting one step ahead of our global competitors. american leadership is inspiring the world by consistently doing what no other nation is capable of doing. we demonstrated that for a brief

time 45 years ago. if we wish to retain american leadership in space i believe early in the next administration the nation must commit to developing a permanent presence on mars. another apollo like mission to put flags and footprints on mars does not ensure sustained leadership and lunar settlements will only require a small step for the other nations to catch a period i have a multi-decade-old plan with compelling vision that will establish world leadership for the remaining of the century and initial landings on mars by 2038. it is an integrated plan that mix together return to the moon on a commercial and international basis leveraging

asteroid rendezvous and settling mars on a carefully developed risk mitigation architecture. it includes the use of a robotic cycler between mars and earth that will revolutionize the economy, economics and safety aspects of human missions to mars. much analysis has been done on this concept in partnership with the commercial, the international community and especially the academic community. all of this can be done without being a major budget buster for nasa. the architectures that develop or driven by several technical principles which i believe are essential to achieving this goal. these principles are part of what i call my unified space vision. one, current programs for commercializing crude cargo transportation to the international space station

could expand to provide transport of cruise with bifurcation with two redundant stations on either side of the moon. the u.s. will lead other cruise from these stations for distant controls of the assembly and check out of habitation all structures and their life-support systems. also intra- credit rovers will provide rocket your resource is and other resources. we also have a reliable develop and tested system needed for mars. we should participate and lunar development, but of voip gaining our human spaceflight captured by lunar gravity is expensive unction of funds.

let's establish a lunar infrastructure with visits to the surface on international lenders. number three, reduce the cost of sustaining a presence on mars by deploying outbound cycling spaceships that orbit between earth and mars without requiring a great deal of propulsion. each successive mission would only have send astronauts landers and the minor provisions. the inward provisions are reusable on the cycler radiation protection. the vast majority of the mass would remain in the orbit between earth and mars. number four, focus on people to mars tuesday. bring everyone home after a relatively brief stay is a cost driver. i envision many people who go to

mars to remain an established a permanent settlement. we develop an inbound cycler thing means that bringing people back for certain contingencies. the cost of effectively sending the entire launch system to return everyone home on every mission can make the entire bench are prohibitively expensive. i provided most of the detail in my written statement and we will have a much more complete version once the concept is connected by an austrian produce study to be finished. in closing i encourage you to think about the ability of free markets in space to reduce the cost and power of american ingenuity to solve the most

difficult technical challenges. in my opinion, there is no more convincing way to demonstrate american leadership for the remainder of this century than to commit to a permanent presence on mars. i thank you for your time and look forward to the committee's leadership. >> thank you for a much dr. aldrin. dr. massimino. >> german cruz ranking member nelson and the udall are members of the subcommittee. thank you for having me here today. i got to do some cool stuff in my life and this is right up there. i really wanted to be here. thank you. i want to describe a few things i learned as an astronaut some benefits our program is provided not only for her country but the whole world in three of them i want to point out from personal experience. to tell you a story from one of my spaceflight that wraps it up.

the first benefit i want to tell you about is how the human expiration program can benefit science and life on earth. there's lots of examples we can use. the one i'm familiar with is the one i got to participate in that is the hubble space go. out of my slides were to the hubble space telescope. hubble has given us great discovery. so far won nobel prize. i think there's more coming. twenty-fifth anniversary of the telescope orbit is coming this spring. it has given us a window into the universe out there. it has found black holes dark matter, dark energy, people continue studying the university and has shown us the beauty and wonder of what is out there. ..

different systems of measurement. how are we going to make this work? why did discover was we all had a common goal it didn't matter what country you were from. we wanted to build a space station. we wanted to byrd rule is his laboratory. with a goal we're able to achieve a great thing which is the international space station which is orbiting above us right now. international cooperation is a second benefit i discovered of the space program. the third is inspiration for

young people. i'm sitting next to two of my boyhood hero's. i watched this man walking about when i was six years old and it changed my life. and it inspired me to become an astronaut. not too many of you than they can remember that but i want to lose my age age and older that i trained with will point to that episode with what walt and buzz did that inspired us as young people. as an astronaut i often wondered what are we doing now that's going to get this next generation of american kids interested in studying math and science and going to space. i never was it was never clear to me until it. i've been teaching at columbia. i left nasa. i'm a professor at columbia. there are some smart kids up there. what he found was they are just as excited as me and my colleagues were years ago, about the space program. it's not just nasa inspiring. i've had lots of students who have gone to work for nasa, different nasa centers for nasa

contractors but these kids want to change the world we want to be entrepreneurial. they see the space program as a way that they can be an entrepreneur. they see the smart successful on twitterers put their efforts into helping economy through space. and they see these people as role models that they want to follow. it's almost i think better than when i was a kid in some ways because it's not just nasa doing big projects. it's also the entrepreneurial spirit where they think they can provide economic benefits for the world as well. historic want to tell you come on my second space, all my first flight, second walk. at how we're about 100 miles higher than where the stage was, nowhere near as far as buzz was but i could see the torture of the earth and you could see it in its entirety. it takes uphold field of view but it's deliberate by first spacewalk expect much. on the second what i wanted to see what it was like. there were no word to describe a

beautiful plan to was. i will tell you what was going to buy my. my first thought was the viewer inhabiting, this is what you would see. if you could be there in heaven you could look down on our planet and you see how beautiful it is. i was thinking about it and it was enough but that i thought there's more than that it's more beautiful the. this is what heaven must look like. at the like i was looking -- that's a pitiful our planet is that it's fragile, it's a paradise and we need to take care of it thank you. >> well, thank you. thank you very much and thank you for that powerful and provocative imagery as well. i appreciate each of you being here appreciate your expert judgment. i think all of us here agree that america should lead the world in space exploration. we have done so for decades. but i would like to start by just asking the panel, how good

a job are we doing today? leading the world in space exploration, and how could we do better? >> we are not really leading the world. we have a facility out in space, and we've invested a lot in it. we've gone to it put but it together, gone to it for quite a while. and then we changed our spacecraft to move to another program. that program didn't come together because of problems with the booster not being powerful enough so we had to go to another booster to take a spacecraft from the company that had not built a spacecraft before. so it was gaining weight and wasn't able to put itself and the lander into lunar orbit. so we had to make the lander even bigger.

that same rocket for ares i was being used on ares v. so it just appeared as though we weren't able to get the crew up there with the existing rocket so we continued to develop the orion. and sort of shelves the heavy-lift vehicle without orion going somewhere, there's no point in continuing the lander. so the program really fell apart. excuse me. >> tell us if that's a call from the space station. [laughter] >> make sure it's not collect. >> you know, colonel cunningham you talked about what you perceive to be excessive politicization at nasa and the challenges that presents.

i was curious if you could elaborate on that, and what steps can be taken to help nasa focus on what should be its core mission? >> i mentioned a little bit of the politics from outside of nasa that's increasingly, over the years it's grown increasingly on nasa. and it can have a lot to do with controlling the project went into, what they did not. but it also in my opinion from outside looking at it it infected the agency itself. people inside of nasa are just not as willing to speak their mind on things to get them done. some of these programs, money has been spent on has been canceled we tried single stage to orbit one time, i think a billion dollars on the. so what's happened is nasa has

changed, in my opinion, they are becoming much more risk-averse agency over the years. for example, we all realized that until we launched the hubble space telescope, it's the greatest telescope we have ever had. well, we are going to have the use of the hubble space telescope for at least another five years it looks like. but that wouldn't have happened had we not had the last servicing mission that went up there to service it. and that mission originally was going to go up a couple of years earlier and was canceled by the administrator at the time because said it was too risky and they canceled it because they lost some people on columbia. it's a mental kind of thing. back and apollo we lost a crew on apollo i. we people that were just fortunate there still a wife from apollo 13. but you have to have the will to keep going. fortunately we had another administered they came on after

that one and that administer took a look at it. it was worth the risk and they went back and at the last servicing mission. and we had the greatest telescope in history. so i don't know how to do this but, because our society seems to be moving more risk-averse but we need to have an agency that understands you've got to pay your money take your chances and get out there and push the frontier. when it comes to priorities at nasa there are a host of exploration parties that have been discussed, whether it is astroid retrieval, whether it's going to the men, whether it is going to mars whether it is going beyond. i would welcome the views of the witnesses on this panel as to what the top priorities of nasa should be here which of those projects yield of the greatest benefits? what order should they be staged in? and to what extent should the focus be on manned exploration

versus robotic exploration? >> i can't tell you what degree and i'm not an expert and totally up on angel efforts at nasa anymore at all. but as i watch it i find that what nasa has been trying to do for, over the last couple decades, they recognize that the public at large is looking for a demand for going to the next frontier, which happens to be, it's mars now. so they have also attempted and to rationalize whatever they were working on as a step along that program. some of the things that the proposed certainly will have scientific value to scientists. of the helpless on the program? i doubt it. there are other ways of doing it. for example, you did your nasa really talking about returning to the moon. i used to be one of those that

was not wild about stopping at the moon in order to get back to moore's. but i begin to realize that we have to have a facility that's going to keep people alive on mars and to will mars and to be a whole lot cheaper initiative built on the moon than the other way. i just think we need to get back on a program that is going to have the moon as an intermediate step. only as it fits into go to the next frontier. >> you know, it's interesting because buzzed with talk about going to mars and the moon and mars to i left the office this past july we talk about this for years. where are we going next? where are we going to go? you can make an argument i think for almost anyone of them. i think the thing that has in common is we go somewhere. i do think nasa does have a plan to take us away from low-earth orbit. we are working with companies that have been selected to

provide, we have cargo going to the station. now with not flying to the station with a commercial crew. that's the plan. i think that seems like it's taking the right steps in going in the right direction, but the opportunity, ability to leave the planet, to leave our orbit is common to all of those things. i've been thinking of this what would we pick a destination? there are so many arguments. you will get different things, people change their mind in the same day. that's a good point. maybe we don't exactly know exactly where we should go we know we want to go somewhere. if we can get the lift capability, the orion capsule ready to go we had to test the condition which was successful. they have a plan for another one. it's picked up momentum. a lot of my friends i was working on when i was in the office, a lot of my friends are still working on displays. people are building hardware to go. we're that destination is to the store, whether that's a destination is to the moon or mars, i think we'll we will get clear on that as we get further.

made we can go all the way to mars. maybe research and technology can get us there quicker. maybe not. maybe we can go to the moon. maybe not. maybe we can go to the astroid if that's the closest case that will keep us in budget, maybe that's the right answer but i think they are taking the right steps to get away from low-earth orbit. you make an argument for each one of these, a be the ideas we plan on leaving, take the steps that into my declared as to whether destination is going to be a few years from now. >> let me see if i can integrate these things together. in the '60s and '70s we learned how to go and land on the mound and stay and do some things there. to do that again 50 years later just does not seem to be something that would be attractive to the people involved or the people who are supporting this. we did not build permanent there. other countries will build landers while they are doing

that. we can build the permanent structures, but those permanent structures will be the same ones in the same base design that we will do at the moon. in order to build those on the moon we need a fairly redundant facility on the near side and on the far side to robotically build those. weekend is eyeing them with our concepts of a base and we know that europe has a company that built pressure vessels for the space station and they can get a natural resources in south korea and india. so they can build the modules that will go to the moon, based on our design. they need to be standard. and we have an uneven terrain and a gravity field, so you pick one off of the lander and put it where you want it. now another land is over here. you pick this one up and bring it over.

they will line up. you've got to level them. you've got a difference in elevation. you've got to account for that. this is too much for the students at purdue. it will be done but i'm going to another resource to help the students in purdue in their study to do that. but the habitat that would be based on what we want at mars will then be exercised at the moon. before we do that we would use the big island of hawaii to make sure that the things all come together. we need an inflatable railway at earth orbit l-1 and l2. we will develop a rigid and put it at those two places. those ridges are what we construct things on, and they are the ones that will be similar to what we're going to build and send to mars with a buildup so that at the time our

cycling system deposits the first people on mars. the buildup would be complete. so we have something -- now what can we do with inflatable and orion? we could send it to an astroid and we could send a robot a year and a half mission and the crew gets there in four months, two days before. but it's got 60 days at the astroid with a scientist who knows about asteroids and robotics scientists. that's a crew and a robot at the same astroid in place. now, that's what the inflatable. when we get to the rigid we can send orion with the rigid on a round flyby of venus. we can do that in a year. it takes a whole lot longer to do with moore's. when we come back we can exercise capture maneuvers that need to be done at mars.

so we'll be doing these things and we will be landing different people at the building and landing and we will be getting these habitats, the different habitats, nine, we'll take three then and we condition it for the cycler. we did it in its cycle and then we use three landers for triple redundancy and as all the letter has to do is get on the cycler. a cycler supplies with everything you it needs. it gets off and lands. the facilities are there for them to take care of. and each pass that that outbound, we reuse the same facilities so we don't have to build them again. we can have an inbound cycler that can bring people back in emergency. it is a plan that is built and integrated, evolving as we go along. >> thank you very much gentlemen. senator nelson.

>> mr. chairman, i want to defer to the senator udall. and i would just say with our goal of going to mars going to an astroid going back to the moon, if we're going to the moon, then show me the money. that's the question. as we are going forward on the budgets that we are projecting. and i'll get into that a little later when i get to my questions. >> okay. >> thank you, chairman cruz for calling this important hearing and ranking senator bill nelson, thank you for your courtesy and allowing me to go forward first in questioning on this side. and thank you to the witnesses. you have given some very impressive testimony. thank you for your service today. scientific research and improved technology transfer and commercialization is smart investment. there's just no doubt about it. it's vital to our nation's

future and for national defense and for our economy. in my home state of new mexico we know this firsthand. nasa workers in new mexico support crucial missions including communication with international space station astronomers at our research telescope are making new discoveries about black holes and planets outside our solar system. one of those astronomy operations is called a very large a rate which is in new mexico and does a lot of that work. researchers at our national labs and universities are working hard to keep america safe and to create jobs through innovative technologies like advanced photonics. so either forward to working with chairman cruz and the ranking senator nelson on legislation before this committee, including america competes act, the commercial space launch act, and nasa's reauthorization but that also

want to take senator nelson as our previous chairman under his leadership, the senate passed a bipartisan nasa authorization act of 2010. very few senators have been astronauts like senator nelson. he may be the most passionate advocate for space exploration who has ever served in the congress, and i'm honored to serve with him on this committee. now, dr. massimino and i put the rest of my opening statement in the record, but congress passed the last nasa authorization act in 2010 as i just mentioned. this law continues to guide nasa as a multimission agency. and to quote that multimission from the statute, quote, balanced and robust set of core commissions in science or not it's, in yemen space flight and exploration. could you share your thoughts on the advantages of keeping nasa as a multimission agency which

encompasses not just human spaceflight but also initiatives such as space-based observations of the earth? >> my time as an astronaut do a lot of things going on in our country. we have military situations. we had economic ethics, a lot of things happened. i kind of got the sense that as a government agency if we're resources that could help whatever that meant, to whatever country needed, that it was important for us to try to conjure but what we could. so you make the example of you mentioned earth observations for example. on the international space station it was a great engineering project international. amazing this thing is up there. this great laboratory. we can do a lot of basic research. but in addition to that we were able to have this urge above our planet will be can take amazing photos. effect my students in my class

were doing, our project for the semester is have an astronaut assistant to help them take photos. it's not just on photos. they can show his natural disasters that occur. you can get a lot of information from them. changes in the planet, whether it be irrigation problems or volcanoes erupting, or whatever it might be. there's a lot of science of data that can come -- can come and help our planet by the passionate taking photos from the transit. might be somewhat kind of a simple egg sample, but i don't necessarily think it is. we are using our resources to other agencies and improve life and increase our understanding. i think if there's a way that nasa can contribute to that and i'm not a nasa guy anymore but always felt when i was asked investment if there's anything i can do to contribute to our country or of the world, that we owe it to do the. it may not their primary focus but guess what we maybe can make a contribution in those areas as well. >> just a quick question because i only have a few seconds left

but it seems to me there's a great potential to develop the skin fields in terms of what we're talking about. could you just talk of a bit about that in terms of speed is absolutely. what i found again on this comes from on recent experience as a university professor that the kids need something to accept the. study math and science i'm not as smart as those was at mit. buzz was a smart guy. i struggled it and stuff and i need inspiration to hang in there. and get through. i think a lot of students they need as we'll. it's an easy studying this stuff. if you have a go at the end if i can finish this thought maybe i can make a contribution to it ever technology their interest and, that's the motivation they need. i have not found any i would throw the jobs out there, if you can find anything else that can inspire kids young people to study those fields, other than space program, i haven't found.

it encompasses so many different areas. it excites the but it's something they think is really cool but it's the future. it's making a contribution back to the planet. they just love it. when you add this opportunity entrepreneurs, i think we are really on to something that i can't think of anything that would excite the more. i see this in the city where does have its own nasa center, not so much a presence as in other parts of the country there still is great interest up there. >> thank you very much. and i've seen the with astronauts to travel to new mexico. the excitement of their with young people in terms of all of the steven field. -- steven field. sorry to excuse myself but i hope to get back and ask some additional questions but thank you both senator nelson and senator cruz. >> thank you very much. senator gardner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for this ring today and i will be following my telephone numbers on the way up to the foreign relations committee after the question and

dialogue we have here. i don't think there's anything you just said that captures the human imagination like exploration. 20 years ago it was probably around 1983 i wrote a letter, i would've been nine, i wrote a letter to nasa. here's a copy vote. took a picture of it because it's not enough. it's a hard copy. this is the first, this is the response back from nasa. the first paragraph able back to me in my letter to the thank you for your recent letter and your interest in wanting to become an astronaut. we are especially happy to have a young people of the world showing interest in our space program we've received hundreds of letters similar to yours. i doubt if receiving letters today. they're receiving enough that i doubt if the only receiving 100. they are probably receiving thousand but this talks about the need to go to mathematics, the need to go into engineering or medicine to to talk to the importance of our space program. they also spent, sent a little photograph of the crew.

i think it was pashtun is the sally ride the first woman in space from the united states on the space shuttle program. that was 20 years ago -- 28 years ago. more than that now but 2011 28 years since i wrote this letter to nasa. 20111983. i stood my colleagues in the house back as we watched the closing of the chapter of the space shuttle program. so i was nine years old writing a letter about how i wanted to become an astronaut. obviously, i failed mr. witt at it. [laughter] twenty-eight years later standing in the cloak room of the house back watching this program come to an end, a program that may be so interested in wanting to achieve more. horace really said it goes west, young man. we find that phrase in american history and we explored and we fought and we pioneered and that's who we are. i'm so concerned about the testimony today that the

comments you made that we are not capturing the imagination like we once were that we are not driving to innovation. we are driving innovations like we were but how do we instill that notion of exploration and really make it a reality? it goes to the heart of what you talked about today in the orion program. i kind of want to get to the. we did the test launched of orion december 5 2014. we did atop a delta four heavy rocket. we tested this and that doesn't look like we are planning to carry astronauts until 2021. can this country afford to wait until 2021? can wait that long? what we do to push this up? how do we capture the imagination that drives many of us to imagine to aspire to space? i guess i would start what is a we need to do to really drive this nation, this idea this value of the space? it's not reports and paperwork. it's something we've got to do

ourselves. >> i think it would help to refocus nasa back on what they did that to provide the inspiration. just to give it another thought, i was listening about the s.t.e.m. education. i'm a strong believer in that. that's what my education was. probably everybody hears education was at this table. we work with the astros college of foundation. we get, now we're up to 30 32 awards every year for this kind of education. but if we look at the organization nasa, nasa is also giving out many scholarships. now, nasa is a space agency. i think if they're going to be giving scholarships, the funds can may be be diverted someplace where the focus on that. nasa needs be spending their time and their focus on those

things that inspire people to do these. exploration is what happened to believe the long-term look at it. but they need to be spending their money on those things that inspire others to make their scholarships derived from other places. i work with scholarships all the time. i believe in them. but i think that the agency just, one more thing that they probably have let's just guess, maybe a couple dozen people that are working just focusing on that as opposed to doing what they did before and letting the inspiration drive those things. another alternative, i am raising about it. >> dr. aldrin. >> and i would like to tell a little story about the months before i left nasa in 1970. i was asked to go down to another center where the next

program to follow apollo was being looked at. and there were hundreds of aerospace engineers. and let me describe what the next system was, and this is 1970. we may have flown apollo 12 and maybe 13. it was to stage fully reusable an orbiter with wings and wheels, and a booster with wings and wheels. and they carried the crew the it didn't carry cargo. you want cargo? use of reusable booster and to put the cargo on top of that period so i went down there to look at the assembly of people. they had seven teams, contractor for a booster and the orbiter. seven of those. some of them doubled up of course and there and they built models. my job was to look at the upper stage, the orbiter, okay?

to see what the people could see during launch, orbit, and come to an olympic i happened to glance down and i saw a window in the booster. i can explain that now. but asked the guy, what are these windows here? when we go up on a booster as a normal mission with a cockpit with two people in the booster. i said you what? we had seven teams and before they store their study we asked them to do a real short study man versus unmanned booster. if you're one of these seven teams and you know what the client wants and if you give him what he wants you will make more money. obviously, all those reports said yes, you are right. we're going to put a cockpit of two in the booster. totally unnecessary. by the time that started getting implemented george gilder ruth said to another, i wonder if we should have put a cockpit in